Weapon Selection Ethics

Netherman

WKR
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
428
Location
Michigan
Whenever I talk to someone at work about hunting and mention that I bow hunt. I get similar responses of "you're a real hunter" or (insert shooting fish in a barrel comment here). My response is that out of respect for the animal I want to use the most efficient weapon I am allowed. This generally catches them off guard and causes them to reconsider their view of gun hunters.

Having said that I was talking to a hunting buddy about giving trad bows a try and thought of this argument. What do you guys think about the ethics of using less efficient weapons? My thought is that using whatever weapon you choose is ok as long as you know the weapon's and your limitations, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Nick
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,029
Location
Magnolia, Texas
I love your statement to those asking the questions. It makes all the sense in the world. I’ve also gotten the same responses from folks about using a bow. You closing statement is spot on. I’d like to add to it.

Having shot both for many years, comparing trad to compound and saying “less efficient” is a fallacy. It’s all about the person using it. The weapon is no more or less efficient. They both still shoot a sharp blade that is more than capable of taking any animal in the world. My 9 yr old can’t shoot a compound well enough to kill a big game animal but she can sure shoot a rifle. You could even argue that using a broad head is actually more efficient than a bullet.

Just more food for thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

elkduds

WKR
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
956
Location
CO Springs
Efficiency? Knew a guy who deliberately got his elk w the 15" spare tire he had mounted on his front bumper. Efficient, yes; he never fired a shot and only got out of his truck to load it up. Ethical, challenging, fun? Not even a little.

Using any hunting weapon calls for proficiency and recognition of the limitations the hunter has w that weapon. A lot of shots that are high percentage w a compound are not OK for the same hunter w a stick bow. If a hunter loses track of his self-restraint, bad things can happen to him and moreso, to his prey. "A man has got to know his limitations."
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
6,389
I love your statement to those asking the questions. It makes all the sense in the world. I’ve also gotten the same responses from folks about using a bow. You closing statement is spot on. I’d like to add to it.

Having shot both for many years, comparing trad to compound and saying “less efficient” is a fallacy. It’s all about the person using it. The weapon is no more or less efficient. They both still shoot a sharp blade that is more than capable of taking any animal in the world. My 9 yr old can’t shoot a compound well enough to kill a big game animal but she can sure shoot a rifle. You could even argue that using a broad head is actually more efficient than a bullet.

Just more food for thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tip my hat to anyone using trad...they are more skilled than I. But bowhunting in general begins where rifle hunting ends. Closing the distance between 200 & 50 yards or less easily tips the scales in favor of the game. Can't speak to treesquatting hunters, i hate treestands. Spot and stalk bow hunters are definitely the "real" hunters in my book. But I prefer the dictionary definition of hunting:
"...the pursuit and killing or capture of game and wild animals, regarded as a sport..."

If trying to stay awake in a treestand is how you hunt then ya can't really call it the "pursuit" of game...more like the "waiting" of game to walk by. The western style spot and stalk hunter puts far greater effort into his/her hunt than the treesquatter does. Oh sure, it's a mental game and requires knowledge in order to place your treestand in the right place but once that's done, any fatarse with a bow can go sit in it and kill something...doesn't automatically make that person a "hunter" IMO. Same goes for blind hunting. But hey, I'm biased...I'm a ground pounder who burns boot leather. For me, using a gun to kill is anticlimatic. An arrow is far more rewarding.

21314846_10213794675842190_3167235699746650149_n.jpg

12006135_10207439324322374_1679118025145663270_n.jpg
 

Boreal

WKR
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
356
Location
Anchorage, AK
I'd agree with "less efficient" if it's meant to convey that fewer hunting trips result in a dead animal. The challenge of bow hunting, whether it be compound or traditional, is in getting close enough to ethically use the weapon you have. When someone picks up something other than a rifle, they are choosing to make the hunt (harvesting the animal) harder than it has to be. The hunter chooses that method because they want to experience the challenge of pitting themselves against the animal in close enough proximity that the animal can detect them and move away before the hunter has a reasonable opportunity to shoot. This requires a different skill set than long-range rifle hunting, for instance, and provides more opportunities for a "failed" hunt. But to the bowhunter, an exciting stalk in beautiful country that gets their heart racing and brings a smile to the face years after it happened will never be considered a failure.
 

Trial153

WKR
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
8,187
Location
NY
The reason I only bowhunt is that I find achievement and great satisfaction even in my failures, making my successes that much more rewarding. I realized early on that wasn't the case when I rifled hunted because success was frequented with such regularity.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,652
Location
West Virginia
I think the OP pretty much summed it up.



FWIW, in some areas, rifle hunting is every bit as challenging as bow hunting. Ever try to get on a deer moving through thick timber, with a lot of under brush? Yo got to find him, evaluate him, and kill him in mere seconds. It is quite a chore sometimes. Much harder to do at 75-100 yards with a rifle versus 20 yards with a trad bow. I know because I've done both a bunch of times. God Bless
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,528
Location
Colorado Springs
When someone picks up something other than a rifle, they are choosing to make the hunt (harvesting the animal) harder than it has to be.

That would depend on the animal and the season being hunted. Bowhunting elk is much easier than rifle hunting elk IMO because of the season we get to hunt them. Obviously if you could use a rifle during that same season, then that would be easier for sure. And conversely, bowhunting during the later rifle seasons would be much more difficult. So more goes into it than just what weapon is being used.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
649
I tip my hat to anyone using trad...they are more skilled than I. But bowhunting in general begins where rifle hunting ends. Closing the distance between 200 & 50 yards or less easily tips the scales in favor of the game. Can't speak to treesquatting hunters, i hate treestands. Spot and stalk bow hunters are definitely the "real" hunters in my book. But I prefer the dictionary definition of hunting:
"...the pursuit and killing or capture of game and wild animals, regarded as a sport..."

If trying to stay awake in a treestand is how you hunt then ya can't really call it the "pursuit" of game...more like the "waiting" of game to walk by. The western style spot and stalk hunter puts far greater effort into his/her hunt than the treesquatter does. Oh sure, it's a mental game and requires knowledge in order to place your treestand in the right place but once that's done, any fatarse with a bow can go sit in it and kill something...doesn't automatically make that person a "hunter" IMO. Same goes for blind hunting. But hey, I'm biased...I'm a ground pounder who burns boot leather. For me, using a gun to kill is anticlimatic. An arrow is far more rewarding.

You just place your treestand in the right place and wait to kill something? To find that spot which may be only 25yds from an unproductive spot involves thousands and thousands of hours of knowledge and time in the woods...I know you have not hunted a 5yr old plus whitetail in highly pressured areas based off that statement. Outdoor TV is false 99% of the time.

Spot and stalk is super easy vs treestand hunting. You just glass them and then get the wind right sneak up and kill them. What is the challenge in that? You don't even have a relationship with the animal you are killing...its really not even pursuing them because you just walk up and kill the animal...its more walking than pursuing.

Treestand hunting mature 5yr old plus whitetails...takes an incredible amount of skill. First off you have to locate a buck...figure out where he is going to move during one of the two to three times he moves his core area. And then you have to know biology...read topography...scent free...know when to hunt a stand...figure out when he is going to be on his feet during daylight hours during the season...knowing which stand out of dozens to hunt...vocalization...plus the 12hrs in a row sitting on a little piece of foam is hard for many people mentally and physically. The "pursuit" of the whitetail takes 12 months out of the year...where the pursuit of a mulie/elk/etc only takes a few hours.

Just giving you a hard time...we are just comparing apples and oranges...both hunting styles are as hard or easy as you make them. The most important thing is we are out there hunting and enjoying ourselves....with a bow! haha
Nice job on the moose by the way!
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
688
Location
Maryland
I love your statement to those asking the questions. It makes all the sense in the world. I’ve also gotten the same responses from folks about using a bow. You closing statement is spot on. I’d like to add to it.

Having shot both for many years, comparing trad to compound and saying “less efficient” is a fallacy. It’s all about the person using it. The weapon is no more or less efficient. They both still shoot a sharp blade that is more than capable of taking any animal in the world. My 9 yr old can’t shoot a compound well enough to kill a big game animal but she can sure shoot a rifle. You could even argue that using a broad head is actually more efficient than a bullet.

Just more food for thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^ Good answer above ^^ human's killed effectively for 11,000 + years with a stick and string, as my friend would say " It's not the bow, it's the man pulling the string" I hunt with a longbow or a recurve, I just bought my 11 year old a compound, both my kids killed their first with shotgun and muzzleloader respectively and I hunt with muzzleloader, shotgun and rifle. I hunt for meat for my family and some friends who enjoy it. Personally I would rather kill them all with the bow because it gets me closer to the game.
 

Beendare

WKR
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
8,247
Location
Corripe cervisiam
Heck, I shoot trad bows....this question is bogus in regards to 'Ethics' IMO..... possibly designed to make one group feel better about themselves?
All hunting is 'Ethical" no matter the weapon.

Why would the degree of difficulty matter in regard to ethics?
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,528
Location
Colorado Springs
Another example: My daughter shot her elk with a ML from 30 yards. At 30 yards I don't think it makes one bit of difference what someone is shooting.......bow, ML, rifle........it should all be very efficient at that range. On the other hand, the last bull I ever shot with a rifle was from sub 25 yards in the timber. I had trouble finding the right spot to shoot at looking through the scope on my rifle even at 3x. I kept looking back and forth between the scope and the bull making sure I was looking at the right spot. In that situation, I would have much preferred to have had the bow in my hands. He also wouldn't have gone as far as this bull did after getting shot 3 times.....and all three of those were kill shots on their own. The 2nd and 3rd shots were from about 8 yards and shooting from the hip. One as he came towards me, and the other quartering away after the 2nd shot.

IMO broadheads with sharp blades kill quicker than bullets in a lot of cases. I had a cow run almost 1/4 mile without a heart after one shot with the 7mag. When I split her open, it was just soup and heart chunks floating around in there. So "efficiency" can be skewed in many directions.
 

2peterhunter

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
174
You just place your treestand in the right place and wait to kill something? To find that spot which may be only 25yds from an unproductive spot involves thousands and thousands of hours of knowledge and time in the woods...I know you have not hunted a 5yr old plus whitetail in highly pressured areas based off that statement. Outdoor TV is false 99% of the time.

Spot and stalk is super easy vs treestand hunting. You just glass them and then get the wind right sneak up and kill them. What is the challenge in that? You don't even have a relationship with the animal you are killing...its really not even pursuing them because you just walk up and kill the animal...its more walking than pursuing.

Treestand hunting mature 5yr old plus whitetails...takes an incredible amount of skill. First off you have to locate a buck...figure out where he is going to move during one of the two to three times he moves his core area. And then you have to know biology...read topography...scent free...know when to hunt a stand...figure out when he is going to be on his feet during daylight hours during the season...knowing which stand out of dozens to hunt...vocalization...plus the 12hrs in a row sitting on a little piece of foam is hard for many people mentally and physically. The "pursuit" of the whitetail takes 12 months out of the year...where the pursuit of a mulie/elk/etc only takes a few hours.

Just giving you a hard time...we are just comparing apples and oranges...both hunting styles are as hard or easy as you make them. The most important thing is we are out there hunting and enjoying ourselves....with a bow! haha
Nice job on the moose by the way!

I agree 100% with this. Not to say some aspects of hunting in a western style is not challenging but it's so much easier mentally then hunting whitetail in my home state of mn I have almost given up trying hard.

I can hunt SD, WY, and MT and see 40-60 deer a day fairly easily this is more then I may see an entire season on the heavily hunted public I hunt at home. Also the fact you can almost walk up to mulies, elk, antelope, and fairly easily on western white tails. I couldn't say what one is easier but I do know what one I most prefer and that I am significantly more successful out west.

Hunting can be difficult and switching weapons can add to the degree of difficulty. I think the most important Is to take the time to be proficient.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
6,389
I agree 100% with this. Not to say some aspects of hunting in a western style is not challenging but it's so much easier mentally then hunting whitetail in my home state of mn I have almost given up trying hard.

I can hunt SD, WY, and MT and see 40-60 deer a day fairly easily this is more then I may see an entire season on the heavily hunted public I hunt at home. Also the fact you can almost walk up to mulies, elk, antelope, and fairly easily on western white tails. I couldn't say what one is easier but I do know what one I most prefer and that I am significantly more successful out west.

Hunting can be difficult and switching weapons can add to the degree of difficulty. I think the most important Is to take the time to be proficient.

My point is simply this...you can take somebody from far away, stick em in a treestand and they can be successful because someone else did the work. No so with spot & stalk. The hunter must do the work.
 

DougP

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
236
Location
Lafayette, LA
My point is simply this...you can take somebody from far away, stick em in a treestand and they can be successful because someone else did the work. No so with spot & stalk. The hunter must do the work.

I get your point. Your way is awesome, and other people’s way sucks and is inadequate. 10-4!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Lawnboi

WKR
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
7,693
Location
North Central Wi
My point is simply this...you can take somebody from far away, stick em in a treestand and they can be successful because someone else did the work. No so with spot & stalk. The hunter must do the work.


What about a guided hunt? They put you on game, sometimes in areas that get less pressure due to hook ups, and utilize sometimes what they know to get you an animal. Could even go as far as to say 'hold your hand through the process'. Bash treestand hunters all you want but doing it yourself, just like doing it yourself out west is a challenge. A treestand is simply a tool, hunting off the ground in the Midwest is nothing like out in the western states, that's not to say either is not a challenge. Nothing wrong with guides either I'm sure someday I'll go guided for something that requires one.

To be honest with you I get more frustrated, and have more mental anguish sitting long hours in a stand than I do living off my back in the west.
 
Last edited:

Lawnboi

WKR
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
7,693
Location
North Central Wi
And on topic, I don't think the weapon choice means anything to ethics of hunting, nor range they are used for that matter. The only obligation we have is to be proficient in your weapon of choice.

People underestimate a broadhead tipped arrow.
 

DougP

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
236
Location
Lafayette, LA
And on topic, I don't think the weapon choice means anything to ethics of hunting, nor range they are used for that matter. The only obligation we have is to be proficient in your weapon of choice.

People underestimate a broadhead tipped arrow.

Agree 100% assuming a perfect shot, seems like way more devastation and a bigger, more consistent blood trail with a broad head than a bullet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
And on topic, I don't think the weapon choice means anything to ethics of hunting, nor range they are used for that matter. The only obligation we have is to be proficient in your weapon of choice.

People underestimate a broadhead tipped arrow.

I agree, I use archery, muzzle loader and rifle. Only ethical debate is that you can use it in a quick lethal manner. Each person will have a different proficiency, the ethical issue is to remain within this proficiency.
 

Gumbo

WKR
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
1,298
Location
Montana
I will almost always use the most efficient weapon I can. In Montana I could hunt during rifle season with a bow, but I never have UNLESS the rules of the area require it. It has nothing to do with ethics, I just want the best opportunity to kill the animal I want to kill, and my standards don't really change from weapon to weapon very much. To me it is about the animal, not the weapon I got it with. And I don't think a compound bow is a substandard weapon, or a trad bow either, it just limits your range. All of the weapons require dedication and practice to learn to shoot effectively, especially at longer ranges. I guess my thought is that any weapon is ethical in the hands of an ethical hunter who accepts their limits with that weapon, which might include not using a particular weapon they can't shoot well enough (for me a trad bow).
 
Top